From: Beyond Nationalist and Colonialist Discourses: The Jaiba Politics of the Puerto Rican Ethno-Nation (with Ramn

Grosfoguel and Chlo Georas) in Puerto Rican Jam: Rethinking Colonialism and Nationalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997). The proposed conceptualization of Puerto Ricans as an ethnonation is a self-conscious effort to recognize that the majority of Puerto Ricans tend to oscillate between understanding themselves (self-representing) as an ethnic group, a nation within a nation, and a sovereign nation. We suggest that given the limits imposed on Puerto Rican locations, effective political strategies should include both incorporation (with critical distance) and differentiation. The breaking of the binary is already a step in another direction that facilitates looking beyond nationalist and colonialist discourses to recognize other political agendas (women, gays, Afro-Puerto Ricans) not organized along the colonized/metropolis axis, which may facilitate the production of a more inclusive body politic for Puerto Ricans residing anywhere. By this last comment we do not mean to suggest that Puerto Rico's colonial insertion is irrelevant to these other political subjectivities. Instead, we suggest that the dichotomy fails to explain these locations' complexities and thus fails to provide them with transforming possibilities. ... The crisis of both nationalist and pro-colonial discourses, the potential American disavowal of its responsibility in (re)producing deteriorating Puerto Rican possibilities, the emergence of new social movements, and the hegemony of transtatal capitalism beg the burning question of participation and transformation. What are some strategies for effective and transformative political participation? How can we begin to deconstruct the colonialism/nationalism dichotomy in our political praxis in order to open other possibilities? Are broad-based coalitions beyond nationalism and colonialism possible? We think so. Majority responses to both nationalist and colonialist discourses during the past fifty years have insisted on an ambiguous and guarded position that articulates a politics of caution that can serve as the basis for a different kind of anticolonial politics. This practice, often referred to locally as jaiberia, anticipates current postmodern debates and concepts such as "mimicry without identification" and "postmodernist parody. The word jaiberia has its origins in the term jaiba, or mountain crab, who in going forward moves sideways. Within the Puerto Rican usage, jaiberia refers to collective practices of nonconfrontation and evasion (the "unju;' roughly translated as "sure... no problem"), of taking dominant discourse literally in order to subvert it for one's purpose, of doing whatever one sees fit not as a head-on collision ("winning" is impossible) but a bit under the table, that is, through other means. This form of addressing power has been the subject of much enraged nationalist writing. Antonio S. Pedreira referred to it as a "verbal contraband" and "ill intentioned malice." Puerto Rican patriot Jos de Diego, for example, deplored the lack of virility implicit in the Puerto Rican's inability to say "no" as a reprehensible Puerto Rican political and cultural habit: Generally, a Puerto Rican never. . . knows how to say NO: "We'll see;' "I'll study the issue;' "I'll deal with it later:' When a Puerto Rican uses these expressions one must understand that he is saying NO, although at most, he is linking the YES to the NO, and making from an affirmative and a negative adverb a conditional conjunction, ambiguous, nebulous, in which the will fluctuates. . . like an aimless bird without a nest over the plains of a desert. Mid-twentieth-century writer Ren Marqus popularized this ambiguity as a negative "trait" in his infamous essay "El puertorriqueo dcil" ("The Docile Puerto Rican"). In this sense, ambiguity, lack of virility, and ambivalence have often all been noted by nationalist writers to explain Puerto Ricans' inability to form a nation-state. In our formulation, these three traits are revalorized as useful resources in negotiating colonialism and subordination, although often with less than ideal results. As Doris Sommer has argued, "Why is it political only to resist? Are deals never struck, concessions never made? Is there no-perhaps postmodern-politics that acknowledges insoluble

tensions as dynamic sites of construction?" It is also important to note that there can be purely complicit uses of jaiberia that fail to advance any collective agenda. Yet, jaiberia as a form of complicitous critique or subversive complicity points to an acknowledgment of being in a disadvantaged position within a particular field of power. A nonheroic position, jaiberia favors endurance over physical strength, and privileges ambiguity over clarity. Although it has been mistaken for docility, it is instead an active, low-intensity strategy to obtain the maximum benefits of a situation with the minimum blood spilled. The proposed reframing of these questions is advanced not only by "postmodernist" theorists but also by other scholars such as Immanuel Wallerstein when he criticizes the old left liberal ideology of acquiring state power and rationally managing the difficulties of the system for the benefit of all. This liberal strategy has tended to destroy antisystemic social movements, transforming them into conservative nation-state institutions trapped in a develop mentalist illusion. Given the failure of socialist liberalism, Wallerstein suggests other ways to contest capitalist hegemony: A multi-front strategy by a multiplicity of groups, each complex and internally democratic, will have one tactical weapon at its disposal which may be overwhelming for the defenders of the status quo. It is the weapon of taking the old liberal ideology literally and demanding its universal fulfillment. . . one can push on every front for the increased democratization of decision-making, as well as the elimination of all pockets of informal and unacknowledged privilege. What I am talking about here is the tactic of overloading the system by taking its pretensions and its claims more seriously than the dominant forces wish them to be taken. This is exactly the opposite of the tactic of managing the difficulties of the system. The tactic of taking the old liberal ideology "literally" and demanding its universal fulfillment is a form of parodic or mimetic politics. It is the strategy practiced today not only by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and the FMLN in El Salvador but also in Puerto Rico since the turn of the century. Many social movements in Puerto Rico during the twentieth century practiced such a "postmodern" or jaiberia strategy by literally adopting metropolitan discourse and demanding civil rights already recognized in the metropolitan constitution. The notions of jaiberia, parody, and mimesis, however, all point to strategies that are most effective in contexts where Puerto Ricans are by far the most disempowered part of the equation. The adoption of these practices is also a way of acknowledging the contemporary (worldwide) political defeat of alternative political and cultural propositions "outside capitalism" that are potentially more egalitarian. If mass movements contesting the current geopolitical and economic hegemonies throughout the world existed, our reading of the situation would clearly be different. Unfortunately, given the current coordinates of power, Puerto Ricans must develop strategies to address the growing deterioration of everyday life, both on the island and in the United States, by seeking increased representation within the centers of power. Puerto Rico's complex set of problems, unlike the political parties seem to suggest, will not be solved by the victory of any "ideal" (Commonwealth, independence, or statehood). None of the dominant political "solutions" (or "formulas" as they are interestingly called) scratch the surface of the power inequities that will remain after any political change in definition. These proposals will only rearrange the current players' ability to administer a colony, neocolony, or impoverished U.S. state.